Aircraft Carrier and Aircraft Limits

[maxs75]

The Bunker Hill had an all fighter compliment for a time (100 F6Fs assigned to VF-8 and VF-4) but there were complications as pilots were often tasked to fly multiple missions in a row and there was even talk of mixed squadron formations, which over time would have resulted in poor unit morale and pilot exhaustion. Luckily the experiment was short lived, as in less than a month VF-8 went stateside after completing it's tour of duty at sea.

Hi,
I read this paragraph, and also the weekly report of location of naval aircrafts lists 100 F6F of VF-4 and VF-8 aboard the carrier in november 1944.
Everything seems fine.
BUT:
the ship's war diary tells another story:
27 oct. 1944:
0725 :anchored in berth #16 Seeadler harbour, Admiralty Islands

1415 officers and enlisted men of Air Group 8, composed of VF-8, VB-8 and VT-8, left the ship for return to United States.

The ship sailed on 1st november to Saipan, in TG 30.4
2 november:
1230 launched 4 VF for patrol, recovering at 1548
Similar on 3rd november.

4 november:
0653 anchored in the center of Berths HOW 21, 22 and 30, Saipan Island.
At 1050 in corrdance with orders of ComAirForPac and Com 3rd Flt, the officers and men of Air Group 4, composed of VF-4, VB-4 and VT-4, and CAG-4 reported aboard for temporary duty.

So, from that primary source I understand that VF-4 and VF-8 were never aboard Bunker Hill at the same time.

Do you have any other info that? It seems that the 100 VF carrier was actually just a plan, but never tried (not only never tried in combat).
Thank you
Max

 

[ThomasP]

I cannot speak to the composition of the Sqns, but there were a couple of carriers that had ~100 aircraft onboard at one time. AIUI, however, they did not operate all 100 aircraft at a time, but stowed a significant number crammed into the hanger as ready replacements in case of attrition during the Kamikaze period. The idea was that if a large number of aircraft were moderately damaged or destroyed on deck - or lost in air-to-air combat - if the situation demanded it they would simply push the damaged airframes over the side and bring up the stowed aircraft.

Basically, they might have had 100 aircraft aboard, but only a max of about 70-80 airframes flew on any given day, and the others would be pulled out of the hangar as replacements as needed.

Also see
"Aircraft Carrier and Aircraft Limits"

 

[maxs75]

I cannot speak to the composition of the Sqns, but there were a couple of carriers that had ~100 aircraft onboard at one time. AIUI, however, they did not operate all 100 aircraft at a time, but stowed a significant number crammed into the hanger as ready replacements in case of attrition during the Kamikaze period. The idea was that if a large number of aircraft were moderately damaged or destroyed on deck - or lost in air-to-air combat - if the situation demanded it they would simply push the damaged airframes over the side and bring up the stowed aircraft.

Basically, they might have had 100 aircraft aboard, but only a max about 70-80 airframes flew on any given day, and the others would be pulled out of the hangar as replacements as needed.

Also see
"Aircraft Carrier and Aircraft Limits"

Yes, the normal complement of Essex class in 1945 was a bit more than 100 airplanes (73 VF (Hellcat/Corsair), 15 VB (Helldiver) and 15 Avengers).

The unusual feature of the Bunker Hill air group would have been to have only VF embarked. At that time more than 40 attack planes were embarked on Essex class.

From the CV-17 war diary, it is clear that VB and VT were embarked for the operations during November 1944.

 

[Admiral Beez]

All these factors existed. For the RN FAA, maximum carrier aircraft design dimensions were length = 40ft, folding wing dimensions = 19ft and parked height = 14ft.

True, but since a 40x19x14 ft aircraft is not a 10640 ft³ box, we must also consider how much overlap is possible while still allowing for aircraft movement and maintenance.

And then we have the extra aircraft hung from the deck beams.

 

[EwenS]

View attachment 764029

Which carrier is that?

And then we have the extra aircraft hung from the deck beams.

A practice the USN stopped in 1942. In wartime that practice proved to be too much of a damage control risk when they on top of everything underneath.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Which carrier is that?

The source just says a British carrier, British Hellcats packed tightly in hangar deck off Saskishima Gunto 24 April 1945 | World War Photos. It's my favourite hangar pic, given the variety of aircraft on one ship - I think I see Hellcats, Fireflies, Seafires, and is that an Avenger (Tarpon) up front?

A practice the USN stopped in 1942. In wartime that practice proved to be too much of a damage control risk when they on top of everything underneath.

I was surprised to see that the British did suspend spare partially disassembled aircraft from the rafters in their armoured carriers, like below, as I did not expect there was space.

It would have been tight in here.

 

[EwenS]

Last first. Indomitable in 1943 when her air group contained 40 fixed wing Seafire IIc.

Middle. I've seen the plan of Indefatigable before. Carrying replacement mainplanes, props, tailplanes etc was not uncommon in British carriers. The plan has 3 Seafire and 2 (edit 3) (tailless and outer wingless) Barracuda fuselages, which is the only time I've seen it. Not sure it happened in practice though. Indefatigable only carried Barracudas from May to Oct 1944.

First photo is on one of the BPF escort carriers. Given how tightly they are packed in, looks like one of those engaged in ferrying aircraft forward rather than one of the replenishment carriers, taking aircraft forward to the fleet.

On 24th April 1945, the purported date of the photo, there were no RN carriers operating off Sakishima Gunto. From 23-30 April 1945 TF57 was at Leyte for replenishment.